A top parliamentary official has been sucked into a web of serious allegations that have, however, been dismissed by the House. At the centre of the unsubstantiated allegations is nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba.
The damning allegations were laid bare in a report tabled in the House by the Senate Powers and Privileges Committee on Thursday, August 10.
The report, whose debate was adjourned following a motion by Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot, had recommended the suspension of Ms Orwoba for the remainder of the second session of the 13th Parliament.
This was in addition to withholding the use or enjoyment of any specified facility provided to members by Parliament for the same duration.
The fate of the MP now lies in the hands of the House leadership, who requested to handle the matter in camera to avoid airing “their dirty linen in public”.
Should the recommendation of the report of the committee chaired by Speaker Amason Kingi be upheld, Ms Orwoba will miss plenary sittings between September 5 and December 7, only returning to the House on February 13, 2024 after the long December holiday recess.
Before that, the committee recommended that she apologises to the entire House.
In a swift move that bought more time for Ms Orwoba and saved the face of the Senate, Mr Cheruiyot moved a motion that debate on the report on the conduct of the embattled senator be adjourned.
Dressed in yellow dress and calmly sitting next to Kirinyaga Senator James Murango, Ms Orwoba only nodded with a brief smile after the resounding “ayes” from her counterparts.
The question before the House was to consider and adopt the report that the conduct of Ms Orwoba constituted breach of parliamentary privilege.
“Whichever way we look at it, there is never going to be a winner or loser in this. We will look so dirty and silly as a House and it will be so bad of us,” said the Kericho senator.
The motion by the majority leader was supported by Minority Leader Stewart Madzayo and other senators despite opposition from some legislators.
“There is no party position in this as this is a private matter,” said Majority Whip Boni Khalwale.
Nominated Senator Catherine Mumma said: “This is a matter that has gone on for a long time and we need to put it to rest.”
Nakuru Senator Tabitha Karanja said: “Why did it allow this issue to come this far? I talked to her and she said she had gone to all the offices and no one listened to her.”
Nyamira Senator Okong’o Omogeni termed the proposed punishment as excessive and setting a bad precedent.
“I have never seen a situation where such harsh, excessive and almost unreasonable verdict is being meted out on a member,” said Mr Omogeni.
According to the report, Ms Orwoba made the unsubstantiated allegations by posting various messages on the Senate Business WhatsApp group on diverse dates.
She claimed that there was discrimination in Parliament by posting various messages on the WhatsApp group in addition to repeating the same allegations during a media briefing.
Ms Orwoba, according to the report, also on diverse dates, made unsubstantiated allegations that there were cases of corruption and requests for kickbacks for legislative agenda in Parliament by posting various messages on the WhatsApp group.
She was asked to appeal to the PSC but she insisted that the issue had not been resolved. She called for investigations into the complaints.
This led to the Powers and Privileges Committee taking up the matter. She was summoned by the committee on August 3 and was to appear before it on August 7.
However, Ms Orwoba moved to the High Court on August 4 seeking to have the summons declared null and void and a declaration made that the committee can only investigate matters that happen within the precincts of Parliament.
According to the report, the senator refused to appear before it on August 7 despite being accorded an opportunity with the committee resolving to proceed with the hearing in her absence.
The report said that the senator and her lawyer misled the committee on August 7 that she had just instructed her counsel on record and they needed time to familiarise themselves with the case, necessitating the adjournment. However, on appearance before the committee on August 9, her counsel indicated that they had filed a case before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the committee.
“It is therefore apparent that they had been instructed earlier and the request for adjournment was misleading and in bad faith,” the committee said.
